1 |
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:27 AM, Anthony G. Basile <blueness@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On 2/8/16 10:09 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
3 |
>> How many of those 14 distros have more than 14 users? |
4 |
> |
5 |
> gentoo is very unpopular as a distro. however, it excels as a meta |
6 |
> distro. if you marginalize its special features, you take away all its |
7 |
> charm. |
8 |
|
9 |
Gentoo's special feature is that it is source-based, not that it uses |
10 |
a different udev implementation from everybody else by default. |
11 |
|
12 |
>> |
13 |
>> Look, I get it, some people don't like systemd. That's fine. |
14 |
>> However, you have to realize at this point that a non-systemd |
15 |
>> configuration is anything but mainstream. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> neither is a system based on musl or uclibc, but if you need an embedded |
18 |
> system, then these are "mainstream". |
19 |
|
20 |
Sure, but they're also not defaults. |
21 |
|
22 |
> |
23 |
> anyhow, the argument in the subject is the order of udev and eudev in |
24 |
> the virtual, not systemd vs eudev. |
25 |
|
26 |
And that is about defaults. |
27 |
|
28 |
> |
29 |
> There will always be a |
30 |
>> "poppyseed linux" whose purpose in life seems to be to preserve linux |
31 |
>> without sysfs or some other obscure practice. |
32 |
> |
33 |
> no, more like special uses. you're framing the issue based on your |
34 |
> notion of "mainstream" |
35 |
|
36 |
My notion of mainstream, and Fedora's, and Debian's, and RHEL's, and Arch's... |
37 |
|
38 |
>> |
39 |
>>> |
40 |
>>> it needs to be in the new stage4s to make a bootable system. imo a |
41 |
>>> stage4 should be bootable modulo a kernel. |
42 |
>>> |
43 |
>> |
44 |
>> Sure, a stage4 based on systemd makes a lot of sense. |
45 |
> |
46 |
> not for embedded and the things i work on. these have users. |
47 |
> |
48 |
|
49 |
Systemd makes plenty of sense for many embedded solutions. For the |
50 |
kinds of solutions where it doesn't make sense, I'm not sure that |
51 |
linux makes sense. |
52 |
|
53 |
But, even if you accept that eudev makes more sense for some embedded |
54 |
solutions, we're taking about the default here, not the default for |
55 |
the embedded profile (which doesn't actually exist, though with |
56 |
mix-ins it might some day). |
57 |
|
58 |
>> |
59 |
>> I think that offering an eudev-based distro as a default just doesn't |
60 |
>> make sense in 2016. |
61 |
> |
62 |
> because you have a limited sense of usefulness |
63 |
|
64 |
It doesn't make sense as a default in the context of the situations |
65 |
where our default profile is intended. Maybe you could convince |
66 |
somebody that it makes sense as a choice for a very specialized use |
67 |
case, but in that use case you're probably going to have a list of USE |
68 |
flags a mile long and be overriding numerous default providers. eudev |
69 |
would just be one more in that case. |
70 |
|
71 |
> |
72 |
>> 2. People get offended when others express a different preference. |
73 |
> |
74 |
> all the vitriolic attacks i get about eudev come from the gentoo |
75 |
> community. outside of this community i get praise. |
76 |
|
77 |
Gentoo is a community focused on providing a source-based distro where |
78 |
you have choices. I doubt anybody in the Gentoo community is bothered |
79 |
about your offering another choice. |
80 |
|
81 |
The controversy comes in when you want to make it a default, and start |
82 |
arguing that it is somehow better than the solution everybody else is |
83 |
using. |
84 |
|
85 |
Outside of Gentoo people either aren't concerned at all with eudev (it |
86 |
probably isn't even in their distro repositories), or they're a tiny |
87 |
distro whose main purpose in life seems to be to avoid installing |
88 |
systemd. Of course you're going to get praise from them. |
89 |
|
90 |
I've always supported having eudev hosted by Gentoo. I just don't |
91 |
support it being the default udev provider. |
92 |
|
93 |
-- |
94 |
Rich |